Religion causing wars

[georgedrw81]

Religion is just one of the many excuses men use to fight each other.

If you dig deep, the real issue is about power, not religion. Religion is more often than not a mask.

Right

[Guest]

I am in a support group on the internet for Parkinson's Disease and there has been a longstanding discussion on Christianity. Several members have brought up the objection that "religion" has caused many wars and conflicts. I wondered if anyone has any good answers to this, or, if it has already been discussed in here could you please direct me to the right thread?

I seem to be the only Christian entering the argument and I am feeling a bit under pressure!

Sin Is In

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. Matthew 24:12

But Jesus Will Win!

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Matthew 24:22

[nebula]

I don't get it.

I'm seeing results as far back as 2007, but I can't find this one.

D'oh, I just realized something. If it was a deleted thread, it would be gone by now.

[Northern lass]

Thanks all of you. Some VERY useful stuff there. The discussion I am involved in is actually being very profitable but occasionally one member (who is a spiritualist) and another who is very angry against God throws in a red herring like this but because there are people in the thread who are genuinely seeking I feel obliged not to totally ignore these two so it gets a bit hard at times!

[Fez]

The subject was about the statistics between those who had died for religious reasons and those who died for secular reasons, all in wars throughout history. I have tried a few combination's and still come up empty.

I think I called it Christianity and War, or War and Christianity

I too cannot find it.

[someoneelse]

personally, I find that when people make such an assertion regarding religion causing wars they are either misguided, ie propagated by a secular culture or source, or are using it as a smoke screen for what their real assertion is. [usually I find the second one more than the first one because most people are quite aware of the flaws regarding "religious wars" being a detractor for any particular religion (though some find this as a basis for disavowing all religion).] The problem is not that there are religious wars, or how many there have been, but what weight does this bear on the particular issue of the truth or validity of a particular religion. The truth is that in most cases it bears little weight to that issue and that is the real issue at the heart of this discussion. Does the violence of man determine the truth regarding what he believes? I think not.

When most people make this proclamation regarding "religion," saying it is the "cause of wars" and such it is not because they really believe that these wars are of actual weight regarding a religious view, but merely that they either want no part of religion or that they are too lazy or ignorant to sort through the facts regarding particular religions to sort the foolish from the practical. Instead of weighing the truth or validity of each and making a decision about each one or any one in particular they lump all of them together and throw them all away together. This is the equivalent of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I rather find it humorous when people use these kinds of arguments. Such, though, is the ignorance of the world.

Though I do agree with much of what D-9 had to say with "religious wars" as well.

[OneLight]

From Twentieth Century Atlas - Historical Body Count

(Possibly) The Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other:

Rank.......Death Toll.........Cause......................................Centuries

1............63 million..........Second World War....................20C

2............40 million..........Mao Zedong (mostly famine)......20C

..............40 million..........Genghis Khan............................13C

4............27 million..........British India (mostly famine).......19C

5............25 million..........Fall of the Ming Dynasty.............17C

6............20 million..........Taiping Rebellion.......................19C

..............20 million..........Joseph Stalin............................20C

8............19 million..........Mideast Slave Trade..................7C-19C

9............17 million..........Timur Lenk...............................14C-15C

10..........16 million..........Atlantic Slave Trade...................15C-19C

11..........15 million..........First World War.........................20C

..............15 million.........Conquest of the Americas...........15C-19C

13 .........13 million..........Muslim Conquest of India...........11C-18C

14..........10 million..........An Lushan Revolt.......................8C

..............10 million..........Xin Dynasty...............................1C

16...........9 million...........Russian Civil War.......................20C

17...........8 million...........Fall of Rome..............................5C

...............8 million..........Congo Free State.......................19C-20C

19 ..........7

[OneLight]

By crunching the numbers a little, I discovered something interesting. In the first 1800 years, the toll is 188 Million, but in the last 200 years, the toll is 202 Million, where a portion of 50 million counted before the 19th century can be included in the last 200 years due to the toll being part of the 19th century. Looks like the facts point to things getting worst.

I might have to disagree with you there. I myself would like to see percentages over raw numbers, as since the dawn of history the human population has generally grown exponentially, especially in the last 300 years or so. As a general rule I think the world is getting safer. However, because of such a large population, and we have the technology to do some real damage real quick, short snippets of recent history can look comparatively worse than what they actually were. 50 million people dead is horrible, but such would have had a much more severe consequence in the distant past than what it would amount to today as it is a significantly lower percentage of the population.

Crunch the numbers and see if the percentage is as scary as the numbers. Yet, the question of the thread was not answered. How many of these would you label as a religious war? Then again, that might depend on what one would call religious? Lets stick with "In the name of God" to make it simpler.

You may like this site to assist you in your number crunching ... http://ldolphin.org/popul.html

[Fez]

Crunch the numbers and see if the percentage is as scary as the numbers. Yet, the question of the thread was not answered. How many of these would you label as a religious war? Then again, that might depend on what one would call religious? Lets stick with "In the name of God" to make it simpler.

You may like this site to assist you in your number crunching ... http://ldolphin.org/popul.html

I couldn't find any numbers I trust enough to use in calculations, but the percentage thing is more of a side issue anyway.

I wouldn't really label any of them as a religious war and I don't think it is very productive, in terms of the OP, to look at wars as either or. Certainly religion played a role in WWII, the African slave trade, the 30 years war, the Muslim conquest of India (India has had some crazy stuff happen before due to waring religious sects fyi), all of which are on the list - all of which the name of God was invoked. Usually there is more than one reason why there is war, which is why most single reasons for war are really hyperbole or severely simplified reasons.

I think it is more pragmatic to look at how religion has influenced war and conflicts, not really how many unpleasant incidents its conjured up or how awful the atrocities made in the name of God were. And when I do that, I just don't see religion as a root cause, its more like a bystander where those in power can manipulate the system or its a mask for other reasons like cultural differences, land/resources and commodities.

Certainly religion played a role in WWII, the African slave trade,

Please elaborate.

And when you say the "name of God" was invoked, please explain.

[Fez]

Hitler had the support of many Christian organizations in Germany, without them he probably wouldn't have gotten elected. He constantly talked about God, faith, and Christianity in a 'positive' light. Religion was used by the Nazis to unify Germany, promote antisemitism, and standard 'rah rah' pep talks on how the Nazi's are good and everyone else is evil. Even the Nazi belt buckle says "Gott Mit Uns", translated "God With Us". Many German people, and most likely Hitler as well, believed that WWII was essentially a mandate from heaven to deliver humanity from all the evils of non-Christians and restore the 'master race'.

The slave trade, slavery in general, and racism were all justified/condoned/sanctioned/encouraged by those in the Church, oftentimes they would use scripture to back their views up. Many believed, or just said they did, that what they were doing was a type of mercy and fatherly love. Originally, in the US, you could not have a Christian slave as all Christians were equal and you couldn't enslave a fellow Christian. Well, the church didn't like it because slave owners didn't want the slaves to convert and be set free so they kept them unconverted. So the church finally decided that you can own Christian slaves, and eventually supported slavery in the hopes of conversion to bolster the raw numbers of the faith.

When I said "invoked the name of God" I was clarifying, I hope, that those conflicts weren't quite about religious influence. Nothing else.

Nope, if you have studied Hitlers "religion", you will see it had nothing to do with God, Jesus, or faith. It was his own twisted version that he manipulated to justify his insane ideas.

link

And who were the main protagonists involved in the abolition of slavery? Have you read William Wilberforce?